^ would that be a sin or justifiable homicide..............

Edited by EddieRUKiddingVarese - January 23 2017 at 16:50

CosmicVibration wrote: EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: The T wrote: I had a personal experience with god once.  I prayed. Nothing happened.  Then I didn't pray. Nothing happened.  Then I started thinking.  Thats my man Mr. T, That’s been your problem all along - thinking. When you were praying was it with razor sharp focus or were your thoughts wondering? When you are not praying are you in control of your thoughts or do your thoughts control you? I think therefore I am, says the little ego.  This is not correct, you are not the ego.  Your true self is more of a thoughtless observer. I think therefore I’m not is more realistic. As it seems that eastern philosophies are somewhat shunned by some here I will not discourse emptying your cup or stilling your mind.  I’ll try to use a less ambiguous dialogue. For truly marvelous plays in life you need to get into the zone as most professional athletes call it.  Ever listen to an interview after a spectacular play or feat that was performed by a professional?  The questions are usually the same and the answers are the same.  What was going through your mind when you made that spectacular play? What were you thinking? How did you feel? I wasn’t thinking about anything.  It’s as if time slowed down for me and I was just going through the motions with no thought involved.  I was in the zone mofo.. To get to that elite level takes a ton of practice.  Tossing out one mindless prayer will not make you an elite spiritual quarterback.  To still the mind is one of the hardest things to do.

I am on the river
Abandon the oars

I am on the river
Abandon the boat

I am the river
The river in me

EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: If it was not for Constantine and the Romans Adopting Christianity, there would be no Christian religions as we know in the world today............. and the Story of Jesus would not exist......

EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: Dean wrote: EddieRUKiddingVarese wrote: If it was not for Constantine and the Romans Adopting Christianity, there would be no Christian religions as we know in the world today............. and the Story of Jesus would not exist...... Not necessarily, christianity was an extant religion before Constantine and probably would have survived after him just as judaism did. Disagree with that (now there is a surprise), Yeah sure it existed but was minor and insignificant and was not guaranteed any sort of place in history. The Romans were smart and used Christianity Politically to their own advantage- as history shows................

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing... Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge. AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.  SteveG wrote: However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE.  Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition. Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum. Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.  SteveG wrote: Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.  I never said they did, so what's your point? Here goes nothing? Correct, as you put nothing of value forward.  Forgive me. I don't have time, or the eyesight, for a good old dust up these days so I'll make this as brief as possible. First off, the removal of interpolations form Josephus' writing of Jesus from the writings commonly known as the Antiquities is and has been widely excepted by generations of biblical scholars, and is believed to put forward an accurate account that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified for sedition by the Roman prefect known in the New Testament as Pontius Pilate. Josephus, unlike the gospels, makes no apologies and holds the Romans accountable for their brutal mistreatment and murder of numerous Jews during  their 30 year occupation of Judea. Secondly, Josephus' also related the lives of New Testament figures John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus, without any fantastic Christian invention such as miracles, resurrection, etc., similar to his depiction of Jesus. Not ironically, Josephus' messianic comrades of temple priests actually killed James on the steps of the great temple in Jerusalem. There is no apologetics in any of Josephus' writings regarding  these people and events. I place Josephus' quote on Jesus below with the later interpolation and with the interpolation removed so that other members can see what we're discussing: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 chapter 3,3 Redacted without the later Christian interpolations: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was (called) the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. This long held belief by academics to the accuracy of Josephus' passage on Jesus is supported by scholars as faithful as N.T. Wright to as sceptical as John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan. This is no way a circular argument. However, you are free to accept it or reject as you wish. As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. With two thirds of the known Old Testament remarkably preserved for two millennia and first written a thousand years before that, I thought that you would give seem credit to a oral tradition that had only been around for 60 years. Not a lot of time when compared with two thousand years for DDS, is it? But I forget that this EddieURVarese's hate on Jesus thread, so back to the topic. Edit: Book 18 Chapter 3, 3 redaction of Josephus' Antiquities.

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing... Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge. AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.  SteveG wrote: However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE.  Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition. Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum. Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.  SteveG wrote: Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.  I never said they did, so what's your point? Here goes nothing? Correct, as you put nothing of value forward.  I don't time for a good old dust up, or the eyesight, these days so I'll make this as brief as possible. First off, the removal of interpolations form Josephus' writing of Jesus from the writings commonly known as the Antiquities is and has been widely excepted by generations of biblical scholars, and is believed to put forward an accurate account that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified for sedition by the Roman prefect known in the New Testament as Pontius Pilate. Josephus, unlike the gospels, makes no apologies and holds the Romans accountable for their brutal mistreatment and murder of numerous Jews during  their 30 year occupation of Judea. Secondly, Josephus' also related the lives of New Testament figures John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus, without any christian invention such as miracles, resurrection, etc., similar to his depiction of Jesus. Not ironically, Josephus' messianic comrade of temple priests actually killed James on the steps of the great temple. There is no apologetics in any of Josephus' writings regarding  these people and events. I place Josephus' quote on Jesus below with the later interpolation and with the interpolation removed so that other members can see what we're discussing: <span style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.</span> <cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;">Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 chapter 3,3</cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"> </cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">Redacted without the later Christian interpolations:</span></cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><div =""="" style="font-size: 12.32px; : relative;"><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; line-height: inherit;">About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was (called) the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. </cite><cite style="font-style: inherit; color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px; display: block;"><span style="white-space: nowrap;"> </span></cite> This long held belief by academics to the accuracy of Josephus' passage on Jesus is supported by scholars as faithful as N.T. Wright to as sceptical as John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan. This is no way a circular argument. However, you are free to accept it or reject as you wish. As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. With two thirds of the known Old Testament remarkably preserved for two millennia and first written a thousand years before that, I thought that you would give seem credit to a oral tradition that had only been around for 60 years. Not a lot of time when compared with two thousand for DDS, is it? But I forget that this EddieURVarese's hate on Jesus thread, so back to the topic. Edit: Book 18 Chapter 3, 3 redaction of Josephus' <i style="color: rgb37, 37, 37; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12.32px;">Antiquities.

Yep, the redacted text of Josephus is commonly accepted to be that as written by the historian. It is also commonly accepted as being independent evidence, as with the comments by Tacitus, Pliny, and Sietonius, of the existence of Jesus, and his impact upon the politics and religion of his time.

I would, though, repeat here the point that none of this "proves" the divinity or miracles of Christ, and I am aware, btw, that you are not making this point.

The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith. I would, though, make the not unreasonable point that all barring one apostle (John) died rather violent deaths defending this belief. Not exactly the acts of people who did not at least hold a profound belief in this act. I would also make the point that the message of Jesus was accepted as doctrine by many people in the Roman Empire, not all of whom could remotely be accepted as thick, ignorant, peasants.

I would also make the point that the conspiracy theories put about by the OP regarding the motives of the Roman authorities to be amongst the most ignorant and depressing I have ever seen. Dean has said much the same.

What I find most unutterably depressing about yet another thread designed to goad those of us who believe in the nature of God, or who try to take an intellectual opinion and view on such matters, is that it was started by a chap who, according to his profile, is fifty bloody three. 53.... A year older than me. I thought Eddie was about 17. It is clearly his mental age. I find these threads horrible, because they seem designed simply to goad and cause trouble. They inevitably succeed. I regard both Dean and you as being two of the best members of this site, and I dislike it a lot when your exchanges result in conflict.

I will say, though, that your point regarding oral history is extremely well made. All of the evidence points towards oral history being accurately reflected in later writings across the millennia, and this in way more cultures than merely Israelites and early Christians.

As I have said before, none of this makes folk such as I right when we profoundly believe in the Divine. It does, though, allow us to state that there is at least some historical basis behind the scripts which tell of the times.

I will say this about Jesus, and this as someone who is a believer in the Divine, and someone extremely interested in both the period, and its impact across the millennia. I actually think that Jesus is best viewed as what he was historically. That is a Jewish Prophet. When you read the Bible, and place Jesus in this context, a lot of his sayings, initially opaque, suddenly make a great deal more sense. He called himself the Son of Man. As did Esekiah. It was a reference to one who had the Divine within them, extolling the word of God to others, one who was inspired to offer words of conduct and wisdom.

The latter theology of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I.e. The Holy Trinity were just that, theology interpreted by later Church Fathers. Their attempt, I suppose, to make sense of the message passed to them. Paul's epistles talk of the Holy Spirit, but do not attempt to impose a theological code, rather a way of living in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and, yes, a belief in His resurrection. The idea of resurrection was not uniquely Christian. A reading of much of the Old Testament tells us that Jewish beliefs included that of pious and observant people being rescued from the pit by a forgiving and loving God. Many of the Psalms cry for just that.

At the end of the day, threads like this will never have members such as Dean, you, and others, including me, agreeing. In fact, they are depressing, because reasonable debate, which I love, is hijacked by blithering bloody idiots who simply seem to really enjoy merely taking the piss out of honestly held beliefs. I will not name him, but I have received a PM from one such member, a highly respected member of the site, who really hates these things, and has been tempted to leave because of it.

This is where, I believe, that moderation needs to be a damned sight stronger here. Posts designed to goad should simply be hidden, and only those designed to inform and influence allowed to remain on view.

The Internet can be a marvellous tool, but it can also be a damned pain in the arse, allowing idiots, such as a very immature Australian, to sit back and gloat at yet another achievement in winding folk up.

I don't necessarily have that luxury, and I can be a real idiot myself, but if I think someone's an idiot I generally would rather not get into discussion with that person.   Idiotic jokes I am a sucker for since stupid jokes are what I love to do with my kids (not vulgar ones in their case, mind you).   Anyone can provoke interesting discussion, though. People who get wound up by idiots are often idiots themselves.

I have little to say on the actual substance of the discussion as I'm agnostic about it and have not extensively studied the history.

I think you just said that we're all idiots, Logan. Fair enough, but Dean hasn't responded yet. 

Personally I believe the writers of the gospels were heavily influenced by an ancient Hindu scripture "The Bhagavad Gita". Since the story of the Bhagavad Gita was initially a recited story, theories on the date of composition of the Gita vary considerably. Scholars accept dates from the fifth century to the second century BCE as the probable range. Anyway, way way before the gospels were written. Lord Krishna (notice the simularity with "Christ"?) plays a main role in the scripture.

Here are a range of simularities that have been found between Krishna and Jesus Christ:

Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
Their adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected.

Too much similarities in my personal view to just call it "coincidence".

Edited by EddieRUKiddingVarese - January 24 2017 at 14:15